I have now met a real life creationist.

[Lion IRC]

Take it up with Keith&Co
He (correctly) noted that order exists in chemistry.

 

[blastula]

Yes, the universe has orderly patterns. And?

 

[Elixir]

Yes, the universe has orderly patterns. And?

And that wouldn't be possible if not for little teeny angels holding every electron in its specified orbit around its designated atomic nucleus.

 

[Ford]

Yes, the universe has orderly patterns. And?

Jesus rode a dinosaur?

 

[funinspace]

Electrical Engineering today absolutely needs physics, especially in the IC world of nanoscale...and it is f*in complex.

I don't doubt it and within the various fields of science you can have many theories. Some contradicting others.


Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation
Thus far UE the better explanation in this regard.

View attachment 9965

Repeatable tests , observable evidence is what you ask for ... generally.

Well, this is at least real scientific work being cited. The idea that this EU is a 'better explanation' as discussed at a layman's level is kind of a stretch. I really know nothing about it beyond reading for 15-20 minutes today. So, I'll have to poke around a bit about this Anthony L. Peratt and his IEEE paper from the 1980's. Maybe I'll bug a friend of mine next week, as he does like to go over my head with his doctorate in physics. There are also some very scientifically literate people here that could comment on this far better than I could.

I did see that this physicist took the time to take some of the ideas to task, especially plasma cosmology:
http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes, the universe has orderly patterns. And?

Yeah Keith&Co
Tell em.

Oh... It's OK
I already explained the ontological issue this poses.
See post #151

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, the universe has orderly patterns. And?

Yeah Keith&Co
Tell em.

Why? I agree with him. "And?" is quite on point.
You've made assertions, but you have not 'explained' this anywhere.

 

[Lion IRC]

Im agreeing with both of you the universe is orderly. I agree chemistry is orderly.
And?
What's your point?

See DrZoidbergs comments claiming it's all chaos.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Im agreeing with both of you the universe is orderly. I agree chemistry is orderly.
And?
What's your point?

I guess you've forgotten my point, and scroll technology is beyond you.
Sad.

 

[Lion IRC]

...chemical reactions are pretty orderly.

See!
You just made a statement about 'order' which relies on a datum.
What is and what is not 'orderly' rests upon the notion that such a thing as order is possible.

The biblical theist simply argues that 'order' necessarily implies intention.
And if we actually do see 'order' (which we ourselves haven't ordered,) then we are right to presume Someone else intended this.

It goes much further than the statistical probability of 'order' spontaneously arising (incoherently) from absolute chaos. We are presupposing (ontologically) that there is such a thing as order - as opposed to the illusion of order.

Order arising from chaos - no matter how gradually the change occurs - only makes sense if you can pinpoint where/when the chaos stops and the order begins. (Or starts to begin)

And you're still stuck with the enigma of unexplained change arising from an allegedly 'spontaneous' (chaotic) event.

If the trigger for change from chaos to (something we call) order is truly spontaneous, how is that event not just as much a part of the ongoing chaos itself?

As I sit and stare at order arising from chaos, how can I distinguish between the (uncaused/unintended) chaos event and the immergent event which newly represents
a thing we call "order"?

Keith&Co started off as if order and chaos were two different - distinguishable things.
Different categories.

 

[Keith&Co.]

See!
You just made a statement about 'order' which relies on a datum.
What is and what is not 'orderly' rests upon the notion that such a thing as order is possible.

The biblical theist simply argues that 'order' necessarily implies intention.
And if we actually do see 'order' (which we ourselves haven't ordered,) then we are right to presume Someone else intended this.

It goes much further than the statistical probability of 'order' spontaneously arising (incoherently) from absolute chaos. We are presupposing (ontologically) that there is such a thing as order - as opposed to the illusion of order.

Order arising from chaos - no matter how gradually the change occurs - only makes sense if you can pinpoint where/when the chaos stops and the order begins. (Or starts to begin)

And you're still stuck with the enigma of unexplained change arising from an allegedly 'spontaneous' (chaotic) event.

If the trigger for change from chaos to (something we call) order is truly spontaneous, how is that event not just as much a part of the ongoing chaos itself?

As I sit and stare at order arising from chaos, how can I distinguish between the (uncaused/unintended) chaos event and the immergent event which newly represents
a thing we call "order"?

Keith&Co started off as if order and chaos were two different - distinguishable things.
Different categories.

You need to scroll back a bit further. You started things.

You were mocking Dr. Zoidberg's statement (odd for someone who gets so pompous when he feels he's been mocked) and have been misinterpreting responses since then, spinning them to fit your agenda rather than any actual discussion.

 

[Lion IRC]

I shall scroll back.
Can you please reference or bump the post where you think we need to revisit.

 

[wilson]

The Sun is not a designed object.

It most certainly is! The sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

It has a surface temperature of about 6,000° C. (11,000° F.). But because of its great distance from the earth, less than one billionth of its radiant energy reaches the earth, an amount that is sufficient to provide ideal climatic conditions that make vegetable and animal life on earth possible. The sun is necessary for humans to tell time and direction. In its assigned orbit, the sun marks out days and months and seasons and years. It is necessary and it is all in the arrangement.

This is a terrible argument.

Uh-oh! This is where the terrible argument starts.

Our sun has that surface temperature and distance, but as you may have heard, it is not the only game in town when it comes to suns.

It is the only one that matters to us and to all life on earth.

There are hundreds of billions of them in our galaxy alone, and to date we've not discovered a star or system which matches our own.

That, alone, should tell you how very special earth is.

These hundreds of billions of other suns (and the hundreds of billions of them in other hundreds of billions of galaxies) are all examples of a natural process in action.

Nature itself is an elaborate arrangement. It works in one direction only. It cannot be reversed, manipulated nor ignored. ALL of those suns are part of that arrangement.

As for your claim that the sun is designed because it appears to be at a perfect distance to allow for life on this planet, has it escaped your notice that we're not the only planet?

As far as life is concerned, earth is the only planet that matters.

There is a distinct possibility that life arose on others which do not share our orbit or distance from the sun.

Is that the science and logic that is so lauded? You know nothing about it and so, it does not amount to any kind of evidence.

Conditions may have existed in the past on Venus or Mars that led the existence of life on those planets,

Conjecture! Absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

and there's a few moons much further out which may have or have had life upon them.

"May?" More conjecture. As the claim goes, that is not how science works.

And that's not taking into account what may be going on in all the planetary systems we've discovered over the past couple decades.

"May, might, can, could" is not admissible as evidence

Your "reasoning" about why the sun appears to be "designed" literally ignores the rest of the universe.

I said nothing about "appears to be," and your argument is more terrible that the one you rejected.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Looking through this thread it's pretty clear that Creationism is just sophistry.

Creationists don't have any evidence to support it. To my knowledge they've never bothered to find any. It's all, "how could this thingamabob randomly evolve, can't explain it therefore [stuff that is a non-sequitur]". It's all argument from ignorance and they don't seem to be bothered by that? If ToE didn't happen that leaves us exactly nowhere. It certainly doesn't point to any kind of god or something supernatural.

Creationism is a non-theory like atheism is a non-faith.

 

[Ford]

It most certainly is! The sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

Complexity does not equal design.

You cannot successfully deny that the sun is a sophisticated arrangement.

The sun - as are all stars - is certainly complex, but calling it an "arrangement" implies that it was designed, an implication which you've provided no evidence to back up.

In order to support your argument for design, you have to show that the sun (and the rather large number of other stars in the universe) could not possibly have formed on their own without assistance from a designer.

Provide your evidence for a designer, and "wow this thing is really complicated and I don't understand how it works" doesn't count.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Looking through this thread it's pretty clear that Creationism is just sophistry.

What i find the most hilarious is that the same general group that insinuates that the term 'atheist' means atheists define themselves by what they're not are largely overlapping with creationists who can offer nothing FOR their theory except failures in science.
Some of these holes are real, some are just their own ignorance being highlighted, but still isn't positive evidence FOR their side.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Looking through this thread it's pretty clear that Creationism is just sophistry.

What i find the most hilarious is that the same general group that insinuates that the term 'atheist' means atheists define themselves by what they're not are largely overlapping with creationists who can offer nothing FOR their theory except failures in science.
Some of these holes are real, some are just their own ignorance being highlighted, but still isn't positive evidence FOR their side.

Or maybe he's saying the universe is very atheistic in its appearance. I'd agree with that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Looking through this thread it's pretty clear that Creationism is just sophistry.

What i find the most hilarious is that the same general group that insinuates that the term 'atheist' means atheists define themselves by what they're not are largely overlapping with creationists who can offer nothing FOR their theory except failures in science.
Some of these holes are real, some are just their own ignorance being highlighted, but still isn't positive evidence FOR their side.

Um.... what holes in ToE? There's no holes. The support of ToE is incredibly robust. You don't need hard evidence for every single detail in a theory. You just need enough to make robust inferences. The demands that Creationists have on evidence for ToE are way beyond Occam's razor. Scientific truth is just whatever is supported by the most evidence. What is the most reasonable. But none of them are perfect. They all have holes. Plate tectonic theory, evidence is kinda light. What is has going for it is that it is the only one that fits ALL the evidence. And that's all you need. Gravity. We've got one little solar system with readings to formulate a theory for the entire galaxy. That's a very weak theory by comparison. Whenever a Creationist tries to create a little doubt about the theory it always comes down to them just having misunderstood some fundamental aspect of how science works.

When it comes to ToE the competing theories is ToE or nothing. There is no other alternative theory. Creationism or Intelligent Design isn't science. Even if we agree on rejecting ToE Creationism still isn't a contender. If ToE would be a weak theory with little evidence supporting it, still the best theory. Something is always better than nothing.

What Creationists need to do is formulate their... well... idea into an actual theory. And then we can compare them. I'm guessing why no Creation Scientist have done it yet (yes there are people who call themselves that) is because there's absolutely nothing to back it up. There's no evidence to even start building a theory upon. Once we have a competing theory we can start having a discussion. But until then ToE wins.

The girl who was the reason for this thread, she sent me a blog post with 10 reasons why ToE is false. Each one missed the target completely because of ignorance of the subject matter. The blog post was affiliated with Jehovas Wittnesses, and was some official thing. Even an organisation like that failed to do just the most basic homework. And that's always what supporters of ToE are up against.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um.... what holes in ToE? There's no holes.

If there are no holes in evolutionary theory, then there is no reason to put any more research into it.
There are holes. There are things we don't fully understand.

Yet.

But they're just details being worked out, not gapes in the supporting structure. They aren't as significant as the critics of evolution would like to believe.
And the questions posed or admitted to by researchers are fodder for quote mining and claims that it's something that'll never be answered, therefore Goddidit.

 

[James Brown]

True. It's a common criticism brought by Creationists. They highlight biologists disagreeing over what amounts to be very minor points. They then conclude that IF evolution was all that then there would be no disagreements. Therefore Jesus.